Photons collected be telescope apertures

  • Thread starter Thread starter trina1990
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Photons Telescope
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
2 replies · 6K views
trina1990
Messages
23
Reaction score
0
the energy output of a star is such at the surface of the Earth it provides 5x10^-19 WM^-2 in the visible part of the spectrum...
how many photons are collected per second by a 500mm diameter telescope?

i don't know if there's any definite formula to drive the answer...but i tried this way..
stellar flux=5x10^-19WM^-2=5x10^-25 J/S/mm^2
E=hc/lambda joul/photon ( assuming lambda to be 550nm)

then flux/E=1.383x10^-6 photon /S/mm^2

then i found the telescope mirror are to be 4pi (500)^2=3.142x10^6 mm^2
now i derived the number of photons per second collected by the 500mm diameter to be 4.4!

can this be right?
is there any other way to solve this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Aside from the fact that the area of a circle is [itex]\pi r^2[/itex] (without the factor of 4), I don't see any problems with your math.

I did some rough calculations, and found that a star with that flux has an apparent magnitude of something like +26. Again, I want to emphasize that this was a very rough calculation. I computed the flux of Vega using its stated luminosity and distance (using Wikipedia numbers), and then took m = -2.5log(F_star / F_vega) to estimate the magnitude. I know that Vega isn't used as the zero point for V band magnitudes anymore, but this was just a back of the envelope calculation to show that you're considering a very dim star. In fact Wikipedia says that magnitude 27 is at the limit of what 8-metre ground-based telescopes can see, so it seems plausible that such a star would be invisible in a 0.5-metre telescope (esp. if your detector is the human eye).
 
thanks a lot...
the book in which i found this problem showed answer of this problem to be 3x10^7 photons per second...
that's why i got so much stunned with my result...:confused:

but a similar problem with different coefficients shows a result very close to my calculation..
anyway i understood the err of my measuring the area of the aperture...
& with the information you provided from wikipedia, then it's most likely to support the answer...
thanks again